Many college students appear uninterested in learning. For example, a survey of sociology majors at a mid-sized public university found 73% agreeing that they would take a course where they earned an A but learned little or nothing and 53% agreeing that the instructor was responsible for keeping students attentive in class (Delucchi & Korgen, 2002). Material of direct interest to students, however, cannot always be taught. This is often true in introductory courses in the sciences where students must learn basic principles and concepts. Indeed, the importance of learning may only become evident after students have completed courses. On a day-to-day basis then, instructors may find themselves teaching material of little interest to students. So, substantial numbers of students may never or rarely complete reading assignments on schedule (e.g., Conner-Greene, 2000; Slish, 2005; Vandehey, Marsh, & Diekhoff, 2005) and many may skip lecture (Vandehey et al., 2005). In the near future these academic behaviors may worsen as more students hold outside jobs. Of students attending college for four years, about 75% report working while attending college, with about 25% working full time, presumably to cover ever-increasing tuition costs (Choy, 2002). Given decreasing public support for higher education, the deleterious effects remunerated work may have on academic behavior, and other contingencies that support student consumerism--how can we enhance preparing for and attending lecture? One approach to increasing the number of students who prepare for lecture is by reinforcing preparation. For example, Carkenord (1994) wanted his students to come to class prepared to discuss assigned journal articles. So, he awarded students course credit for bringing a brief summary and critique of the articles to class and submitting these notes at the class's end. Most importantly, beyond offering course credit, Carkenord also returned these notes so students could use them during tests. He reported that students typically submitted notes for about 74% of the articles. Carkenord neither experimentally evaluated his instructed contingency nor explored whether offering course credit was necessary to support his students reading assigned materials and completing notes before class. It is possible that such desirable academic behavior could have been supported by allowing students to later use their notes during tests. That such use may function as a reinforcer is an implication of the Response Deprivation Hypothesis (Timberlake & Farmer-Dougan, 1991) which suggests that constraining behavior below baseline levels renders that behavior reinforcing. Constraint appears present in most test situations when notes are prohibited. But what suggests that without the prohibition students would bring notes to tests? First, when people must respond in new ways they often use prompts. For example, an instructor is likely to use note cards, overhead transparencies, or PowerPoint[R] slide
{"title":"Increasing Students' Attendance at Lecture and Preparation for Lecture by Allowing Students to Use Their Notes during Tests","authors":"Paul A. Messling, M. Dermer","doi":"10.1037/H0100678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100678","url":null,"abstract":"Many college students appear uninterested in learning. For example, a survey of sociology majors at a mid-sized public university found 73% agreeing that they would take a course where they earned an A but learned little or nothing and 53% agreeing that the instructor was responsible for keeping students attentive in class (Delucchi & Korgen, 2002). Material of direct interest to students, however, cannot always be taught. This is often true in introductory courses in the sciences where students must learn basic principles and concepts. Indeed, the importance of learning may only become evident after students have completed courses. On a day-to-day basis then, instructors may find themselves teaching material of little interest to students. So, substantial numbers of students may never or rarely complete reading assignments on schedule (e.g., Conner-Greene, 2000; Slish, 2005; Vandehey, Marsh, & Diekhoff, 2005) and many may skip lecture (Vandehey et al., 2005). In the near future these academic behaviors may worsen as more students hold outside jobs. Of students attending college for four years, about 75% report working while attending college, with about 25% working full time, presumably to cover ever-increasing tuition costs (Choy, 2002). Given decreasing public support for higher education, the deleterious effects remunerated work may have on academic behavior, and other contingencies that support student consumerism--how can we enhance preparing for and attending lecture? One approach to increasing the number of students who prepare for lecture is by reinforcing preparation. For example, Carkenord (1994) wanted his students to come to class prepared to discuss assigned journal articles. So, he awarded students course credit for bringing a brief summary and critique of the articles to class and submitting these notes at the class's end. Most importantly, beyond offering course credit, Carkenord also returned these notes so students could use them during tests. He reported that students typically submitted notes for about 74% of the articles. Carkenord neither experimentally evaluated his instructed contingency nor explored whether offering course credit was necessary to support his students reading assigned materials and completing notes before class. It is possible that such desirable academic behavior could have been supported by allowing students to later use their notes during tests. That such use may function as a reinforcer is an implication of the Response Deprivation Hypothesis (Timberlake & Farmer-Dougan, 1991) which suggests that constraining behavior below baseline levels renders that behavior reinforcing. Constraint appears present in most test situations when notes are prohibited. But what suggests that without the prohibition students would bring notes to tests? First, when people must respond in new ways they often use prompts. For example, an instructor is likely to use note cards, overhead transparencies, or PowerPoint[R] slide","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"10 1","pages":"381-390"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58473360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The need to develop tools to assess and support the behavioral health of space-dwelling crews continues to be acknowledged by NASA (Suedfeld, Bootzin, Harvey, Leon, Musson, Oltmanns, & Paulus, 2010). In that regard, the term "behavioral health" encompasses a broad range of affective, social, and skilled individual and crew performances that must be sustained under the obviously stressful circumstances of long-duration spaceflight (Brady, 2007; Emurian & Brady, 2007). The detection of impending performance degradation necessitates the consideration of innovative approaches to monitor and measure both individual and team performances that realistically relate to the operational status of a crew. The introduction of effective countermeasures to such degradation is complementary to detection, and potential solutions to these two challenges will benefit from a technology that can integrate both considerations within a common conceptual framework with respect to task performance. A three-person team performance task (TPT) was proposed as a tool to diagnose the status of a crew (Emurian, Canfield, Roma, Gasior, Brinson, Hienz, Hursh, & Brady, 2009), and the rationale of its design, from the perspective of behavior analysis, and an evaluation of its effectiveness have been reported (Emurian, Canfield, Roma, Brinson, Gasior, Hienz, Hursh, & Brady, in press). The initial evaluations were based upon having subjects perform the task for fixed time periods (e.g., 12 min), with instructions to maximize performance effectiveness. Although providing important feedback regarding the properties of the task and performance metrics associated with individual and team performances, a more realistic diagnostic scenario would require a crew to complete a given task without regard to temporal constraints. Accordingly, the present extension of the task implements a fixed-ratio requirement on performance accuracy at the level of the individual team member and at the level of the team. The present report is a case study of the evaluation of such an extension under conditions of the replacement of an established team member with a novitiate. The context of this study includes analyses of group membership replacement previously undertaken within a continuously programmed environment (Emurian,Brady, Ray, Meyerhoff, & Mougey, 1984). Method Subjects Four UMBC undergraduate students volunteered to participate in response to an announcement posted on the student listserv. Volunteers were directed to read the information posted on the web (http://nasa1.ifsm.umbc.edu/tpt/). The study was approved by UMBC's Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was obtained at the time of each daily session. Each participant was paid $30 in cash at the completion of a session. Table 1 presents demographic details about the four subjects collected before Session 1 for subjects 1, 2, and 3 and before Session 5 for subject 2*. Two rating scales were administered to assess each subject's expe
{"title":"Behavior Analysis of Team Performance: A Case Study of Membership Replacement","authors":"H. Emurian, K. Canfield, J. Brady","doi":"10.1037/H0100699","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100699","url":null,"abstract":"The need to develop tools to assess and support the behavioral health of space-dwelling crews continues to be acknowledged by NASA (Suedfeld, Bootzin, Harvey, Leon, Musson, Oltmanns, & Paulus, 2010). In that regard, the term \"behavioral health\" encompasses a broad range of affective, social, and skilled individual and crew performances that must be sustained under the obviously stressful circumstances of long-duration spaceflight (Brady, 2007; Emurian & Brady, 2007). The detection of impending performance degradation necessitates the consideration of innovative approaches to monitor and measure both individual and team performances that realistically relate to the operational status of a crew. The introduction of effective countermeasures to such degradation is complementary to detection, and potential solutions to these two challenges will benefit from a technology that can integrate both considerations within a common conceptual framework with respect to task performance. A three-person team performance task (TPT) was proposed as a tool to diagnose the status of a crew (Emurian, Canfield, Roma, Gasior, Brinson, Hienz, Hursh, & Brady, 2009), and the rationale of its design, from the perspective of behavior analysis, and an evaluation of its effectiveness have been reported (Emurian, Canfield, Roma, Brinson, Gasior, Hienz, Hursh, & Brady, in press). The initial evaluations were based upon having subjects perform the task for fixed time periods (e.g., 12 min), with instructions to maximize performance effectiveness. Although providing important feedback regarding the properties of the task and performance metrics associated with individual and team performances, a more realistic diagnostic scenario would require a crew to complete a given task without regard to temporal constraints. Accordingly, the present extension of the task implements a fixed-ratio requirement on performance accuracy at the level of the individual team member and at the level of the team. The present report is a case study of the evaluation of such an extension under conditions of the replacement of an established team member with a novitiate. The context of this study includes analyses of group membership replacement previously undertaken within a continuously programmed environment (Emurian,Brady, Ray, Meyerhoff, & Mougey, 1984). Method Subjects Four UMBC undergraduate students volunteered to participate in response to an announcement posted on the student listserv. Volunteers were directed to read the information posted on the web (http://nasa1.ifsm.umbc.edu/tpt/). The study was approved by UMBC's Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was obtained at the time of each daily session. Each participant was paid $30 in cash at the completion of a session. Table 1 presents demographic details about the four subjects collected before Session 1 for subjects 1, 2, and 3 and before Session 5 for subject 2*. Two rating scales were administered to assess each subject's expe","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"161-185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474414","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Traci Lanner, B. Nichols, S. Field, J. Hanson, Thomas Zane
Educators have relied on the use of positive reinforcement techniques for many years to modify human behavior (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). One particular challenge in working with individuals who exhibit developmental disabilities such as autism is that of selecting effective reinforcers. Caregiver interviews are frequently utilized but are not necessarily accurate predictors of reinforcers (e.g., Green, Reid, Canipe, & Gardner, 1991). As an alternative, Pace, Martin, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985) described a systematic preference assessment. Participants were presented with various stimuli, one at a time, and their approach or non-approach of the item was measured. Items which were approached were found to be more reinforcing than non-approached items when utilized in a behavior change program. Since then, several variations have been developed, including forced choice/paired stimulus (FC/PS; Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hagopian, Owens, & Slevin, 1992; Mason, McGee, Farmer-Dougan, & Risley, 1989), multiple stimulus presentations with replacement (MSW; Windsor, Piche, & Locke (1994), and the Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO; DeLeon & Iwata 1996). In the PS approach, two potentially reinforcing items are presented at the same time and the participant is asked to "pick one." All items are compared to one another and their position on the table is controlled. In the MSW approach, all items are available to the participant at the same time. Once a selection is made and the participant accesses the item, it is placed back in the lineup for a second selection. Position in the line is controlled for by rotating the items after each selection. The MSWO procedure is similar except that once an item has been chosen, it is removed from the lineup. It is assumed that those items which are chosen first will function more effectively as reinforcers. In addition to being able to accurately identify reinforcing items, it is critical to applied clinicians that preference assessment techniques are able to be carried out in the most efficient manner, with regard to duration of procedure. In order to better serve clients, it would be helpful to know which preference assessment techniques yield the most accurate prediction of reinforcers in the least amount of administration time. DeLe on and Iwata (1996) explored this topic by comparing the paired stimulus (PS) presentation, with the multiple stimuli with and without replacement presentations (MSW and MSWO). They found that the MSW was the fastest to administer but that the MSWO and the PS "identified more stimuli that are at least minimally reinforcing than does the MS procedure" (p. 530). Thus, the purpose of the current research was to compare administration time of the MSWO and the PS assessments and their ability to accurately identify reinforcers given a sorting task. Method Participants and Setting Four individuals with a primary diagnosis of autism and varying levels of mental ret
{"title":"The Clinical Utility of Two Reinforcement Preference Assessment Techniques: A Comparison of Duration of Assessment and Identification of Functional Reinforcers.","authors":"Traci Lanner, B. Nichols, S. Field, J. Hanson, Thomas Zane","doi":"10.1037/H0100683","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100683","url":null,"abstract":"Educators have relied on the use of positive reinforcement techniques for many years to modify human behavior (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). One particular challenge in working with individuals who exhibit developmental disabilities such as autism is that of selecting effective reinforcers. Caregiver interviews are frequently utilized but are not necessarily accurate predictors of reinforcers (e.g., Green, Reid, Canipe, & Gardner, 1991). As an alternative, Pace, Martin, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985) described a systematic preference assessment. Participants were presented with various stimuli, one at a time, and their approach or non-approach of the item was measured. Items which were approached were found to be more reinforcing than non-approached items when utilized in a behavior change program. Since then, several variations have been developed, including forced choice/paired stimulus (FC/PS; Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hagopian, Owens, & Slevin, 1992; Mason, McGee, Farmer-Dougan, & Risley, 1989), multiple stimulus presentations with replacement (MSW; Windsor, Piche, & Locke (1994), and the Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO; DeLeon & Iwata 1996). In the PS approach, two potentially reinforcing items are presented at the same time and the participant is asked to \"pick one.\" All items are compared to one another and their position on the table is controlled. In the MSW approach, all items are available to the participant at the same time. Once a selection is made and the participant accesses the item, it is placed back in the lineup for a second selection. Position in the line is controlled for by rotating the items after each selection. The MSWO procedure is similar except that once an item has been chosen, it is removed from the lineup. It is assumed that those items which are chosen first will function more effectively as reinforcers. In addition to being able to accurately identify reinforcing items, it is critical to applied clinicians that preference assessment techniques are able to be carried out in the most efficient manner, with regard to duration of procedure. In order to better serve clients, it would be helpful to know which preference assessment techniques yield the most accurate prediction of reinforcers in the least amount of administration time. DeLe on and Iwata (1996) explored this topic by comparing the paired stimulus (PS) presentation, with the multiple stimuli with and without replacement presentations (MSW and MSWO). They found that the MSW was the fastest to administer but that the MSWO and the PS \"identified more stimuli that are at least minimally reinforcing than does the MS procedure\" (p. 530). Thus, the purpose of the current research was to compare administration time of the MSWO and the PS assessments and their ability to accurately identify reinforcers given a sorting task. Method Participants and Setting Four individuals with a primary diagnosis of autism and varying levels of mental ret","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"10 1","pages":"456-466"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58473240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) was last known to exist in 1944. Unexpectedly, in 2004, it was purportedly seen near Brinkley, Arkansas. This claim resulted in a scientific expedition that produced an inconclusive video that was used to confirm the bird's reemergence from extinction, an article in Science magazine extolling the excitement that the bird was indeed back, and a worldwide fascination towards a species supposedly extinct but now here again. Yet, despite over 5 years of searching at a cost of over $10 million, there remains no physical proof that the woodpecker is in fact alive (Radford, 2009). At a 2004 Florida conference about treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), a medical doctor spoke to a group of parents about electromagnetic fields and their impact on autism. The doctor asked one parent if she used cell phones, to which the parent replied in the affirmative. With a grand wave of the hand, the doctor pronounced, "throw them out!" advocating for the unproven belief that the electrical energy emanating from cellular phones was somehow either responsible for or negatively impacting the symptoms of this neurological disorder. When confronted with claims that are presented as true, how can we make a reasonable evaluation to ascertain, as confidently as possible, whether the claim has merit? This fundamental question impacts virtually all areas of our society. Claims abound--of alien abductions, the existence of the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot, and the eating of wild boar meat to cure autism. How can we "separate the wheat from the chaff" in a way that both prevents the acceptance of wildly suspicious claims that have no support, and permits adoption, with some level of certainty and comfort, claims that are likely to in fact be true? The best way known to evaluate claims is to adopt the intellectual discipline of science and the scientific method of investigation. This methodology involves (1) adopting "philosophic doubt" or skepticism (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007) and (2) conducting controlled experiments that (3) minimize threats to internal validity. Practicing skepticism is crucial to protecting oneself from believing unsubstantiated claims. Though the American public views science's effect on society as positive (in a recent survey, 84% of respondents said that the effect of science was mostly positive and that the scientists were ranked as the third-most contributing profession to society, after the military and teachers; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009), the continued adoption of unproven beliefs, claims, and bizarre treatments (particularly in the field of autism) remains strong, suggesting that although science is lauded, skepticism--and scientific thinking in general--is not widely practiced. The use of experimentation is the most rigorous of the levels of science (Cooper, et al., 2007), because of the use of systematic manipulation of variables to test the e
象牙嘴啄木鸟(Campephilus principalis)最后一次被发现是在1944年。出乎意料的是，2004年，据说有人在阿肯色州布林克利附近看到了它。这一说法导致了一次科学考察，制作了一个不确定的视频，用来证实这种鸟从灭绝中复活，科学杂志上的一篇文章颂扬了这种鸟确实回来的兴奋，以及全世界对这种被认为已经灭绝的物种的迷恋，但现在又出现了。然而，尽管花费了5年多的时间，花费了1000多万美元，仍然没有物理证据证明啄木鸟实际上是活着的(Radford, 2009)。在2004年佛罗里达关于自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)治疗的会议上，一位医生向一群家长讲述了电磁场及其对自闭症的影响。医生问其中一位家长是否使用手机，这位家长回答说使用了。医生挥了挥手，大声说:“把它们扔出去!”这是一种未经证实的信念，即手机发出的电能在某种程度上导致了这种神经系统疾病的症状，或者对这种症状产生了负面影响。当面对看似真实的说法时，我们如何才能做出合理的评估，以尽可能自信地确定这种说法是否有价值?这个基本问题几乎影响到我们社会的所有领域。关于外星人绑架，尼斯湖水怪和大脚怪的存在，以及吃野猪肉来治疗自闭症的说法比比皆是。我们如何才能“去芜存草”，既能防止人们接受毫无根据的可疑言论，又能在一定程度上确定和舒适地接受实际上可能是真实的言论?评估索赔的最佳方法是采用科学的知识纪律和科学的调查方法。这种方法包括:(1)采用“哲学怀疑”或怀疑主义(例如，Cooper, Heron， & Heward, 2007)和(2)进行对照实验，(3)最大限度地减少对内部有效性的威胁。练习怀疑对于保护自己不相信未经证实的说法至关重要。尽管美国公众认为科学对社会的影响是积极的(在最近的一项调查中，84%的受访者表示科学的影响大多是积极的，科学家被列为对社会贡献最大的第三大职业，仅次于军队和教师;美国科学促进会(American Association for Advancement of Science, 2009)的报告)中，对未经证实的信念、主张和怪异疗法(尤其是在自闭症领域)的持续接受仍然很强烈，这表明尽管科学受到称赞，但怀疑主义——以及一般的科学思维——并没有得到广泛的实践。实验的使用是科学水平中最严格的(Cooper, et al.， 2007)，因为使用系统的变量操作来测试因果关系的存在。怀疑主义并不是一种提倡不相信每一个真理或主张的观点(诺曼德，2008)。怀疑主义则更为精致。Merriam-Webster Online(2010)将其定义为“一种态度、怀疑或倾向于怀疑，无论是对一般的还是对特定的对象。”这个词来自希腊语“skeptikos”，意思是“询问者”或“调查者”(DiCarlo, 2009)。Pigliucci(2009)将怀疑论定义为在充分的证据被检验之前暂停判断(要么采纳要么拒绝)。Kurtz(2010)在他的“怀疑性调查”讨论中强调了这一观点，这种方法促使审查员“……在可行的情况下，为任何背景下的任何真理主张寻求充分的证据和合理的依据”。(第21页，引用自Normand, 2008)。在采纳或拒绝各种主张之前，应审查支持其证据的数量和质量。…
{"title":"How to Stay True to Our Science: Three Principles to Guide Our Behavior","authors":"Thomas Zane","doi":"10.1037/H0100701","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100701","url":null,"abstract":"The ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) was last known to exist in 1944. Unexpectedly, in 2004, it was purportedly seen near Brinkley, Arkansas. This claim resulted in a scientific expedition that produced an inconclusive video that was used to confirm the bird's reemergence from extinction, an article in Science magazine extolling the excitement that the bird was indeed back, and a worldwide fascination towards a species supposedly extinct but now here again. Yet, despite over 5 years of searching at a cost of over $10 million, there remains no physical proof that the woodpecker is in fact alive (Radford, 2009). At a 2004 Florida conference about treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), a medical doctor spoke to a group of parents about electromagnetic fields and their impact on autism. The doctor asked one parent if she used cell phones, to which the parent replied in the affirmative. With a grand wave of the hand, the doctor pronounced, \"throw them out!\" advocating for the unproven belief that the electrical energy emanating from cellular phones was somehow either responsible for or negatively impacting the symptoms of this neurological disorder. When confronted with claims that are presented as true, how can we make a reasonable evaluation to ascertain, as confidently as possible, whether the claim has merit? This fundamental question impacts virtually all areas of our society. Claims abound--of alien abductions, the existence of the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot, and the eating of wild boar meat to cure autism. How can we \"separate the wheat from the chaff\" in a way that both prevents the acceptance of wildly suspicious claims that have no support, and permits adoption, with some level of certainty and comfort, claims that are likely to in fact be true? The best way known to evaluate claims is to adopt the intellectual discipline of science and the scientific method of investigation. This methodology involves (1) adopting \"philosophic doubt\" or skepticism (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007) and (2) conducting controlled experiments that (3) minimize threats to internal validity. Practicing skepticism is crucial to protecting oneself from believing unsubstantiated claims. Though the American public views science's effect on society as positive (in a recent survey, 84% of respondents said that the effect of science was mostly positive and that the scientists were ranked as the third-most contributing profession to society, after the military and teachers; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009), the continued adoption of unproven beliefs, claims, and bizarre treatments (particularly in the field of autism) remains strong, suggesting that although science is lauded, skepticism--and scientific thinking in general--is not widely practiced. The use of experimentation is the most rigorous of the levels of science (Cooper, et al., 2007), because of the use of systematic manipulation of variables to test the e","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"206-213"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Autism is not only of the most prevalent developmental disabilities, but it is also the fastest growing according to the Autism Society of America, (2008). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics indicate that 1 in 150 8-year-old children in the United States have an autism spectrum disorder (CDC; 2007). The rising incidence may be due to increased awareness, early identification markers and screenings, and more sensitive and specific assessment diagnostic instruments. As the number of children with the disorder rises, so too does the need for qualified therapists and effective interventions to maximize each child's full potential. As such, the CDC recommends that individuals diagnosed with autism receive evidence-based, early intervention services as soon as possible (CDC; 2007). According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; 1994), autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is described by significant deficits in three behavioral domains: 1) qualitative impairment in social interaction, 2) qualitative impairment in communication, and 3) restricted, repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities. Communication deficits include a delay in the development of spoken language. When language does develop, impairments in conversational language occur with high frequency (DSM-IV; 1994). Many instructional models (e.g. discrete trial teaching, incidental teaching, pivotal response training) specifically teach spoken language as part of the instructional sequence to remediate these debilitating communication deficits. As stated above, there are multiple approaches used to teach individuals with developmental disabilities spoken language just within the field of applied behavior analysis (ABA). Historically, the approach most associated with ABA is discrete trial teaching (DTT). Discrete trial teaching is a systematic and structured teaching methodology, consisting of "discrete" trials. A discrete trial consists of one concise instruction, a learned response, and a consequence highly controlled by an instructor. Discrete trial teaching sessions generally occur at an isolated table in a designated area of a home or school and thus the model has received significant criticism over the years (Steege, Mace, Perry, & Longnecker, 2007). Therefore, for purpose of this investigation, all research using DTT is referred to as contrived approaches because the instructional strategy is not "typical" of a naturalistic setting. In addition to the setting and approach being contrived, discrete trial critics have argued that there is a lack of skill generalization, that the instructional approach only produces rote responding, and that there is an inability to teach sequential chains since instruction only occurs as discrete trials (Steege et al., 2007; Sundberg & Partington, 1998). For these reasons, critics have referred to DTT as an analog training condition and not likely to generalize
{"title":"A quantitative analysis of language interventions for children with autism.","authors":"Meghan Kane, J. Connell, Melanie Pellecchia","doi":"10.1037/H0100696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100696","url":null,"abstract":"Autism is not only of the most prevalent developmental disabilities, but it is also the fastest growing according to the Autism Society of America, (2008). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics indicate that 1 in 150 8-year-old children in the United States have an autism spectrum disorder (CDC; 2007). The rising incidence may be due to increased awareness, early identification markers and screenings, and more sensitive and specific assessment diagnostic instruments. As the number of children with the disorder rises, so too does the need for qualified therapists and effective interventions to maximize each child's full potential. As such, the CDC recommends that individuals diagnosed with autism receive evidence-based, early intervention services as soon as possible (CDC; 2007). According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; 1994), autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is described by significant deficits in three behavioral domains: 1) qualitative impairment in social interaction, 2) qualitative impairment in communication, and 3) restricted, repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities. Communication deficits include a delay in the development of spoken language. When language does develop, impairments in conversational language occur with high frequency (DSM-IV; 1994). Many instructional models (e.g. discrete trial teaching, incidental teaching, pivotal response training) specifically teach spoken language as part of the instructional sequence to remediate these debilitating communication deficits. As stated above, there are multiple approaches used to teach individuals with developmental disabilities spoken language just within the field of applied behavior analysis (ABA). Historically, the approach most associated with ABA is discrete trial teaching (DTT). Discrete trial teaching is a systematic and structured teaching methodology, consisting of \"discrete\" trials. A discrete trial consists of one concise instruction, a learned response, and a consequence highly controlled by an instructor. Discrete trial teaching sessions generally occur at an isolated table in a designated area of a home or school and thus the model has received significant criticism over the years (Steege, Mace, Perry, & Longnecker, 2007). Therefore, for purpose of this investigation, all research using DTT is referred to as contrived approaches because the instructional strategy is not \"typical\" of a naturalistic setting. In addition to the setting and approach being contrived, discrete trial critics have argued that there is a lack of skill generalization, that the instructional approach only produces rote responding, and that there is an inability to teach sequential chains since instruction only occurs as discrete trials (Steege et al., 2007; Sundberg & Partington, 1998). For these reasons, critics have referred to DTT as an analog training condition and not likely to generalize ","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"128-144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Self determination has long been a concept of great interest to psychologists. For instance, self determination was a critical concept in the person-centered therapy and theory of personality that was forwarded by Carl Rogers (Patterson & Joseph, 2007). More recently, self-determination theory has emerged (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2008) as a general theory of human behavior and motivation that has been applied in a wide variety of situations (e.g., education, Kaufman & Dodge, 2009; worker satisfaction & productivity, Kuvaas, 2009). The common theme related to self determination is that it is a good thing; people are happier, more motivated, and more productive when they can exercise self determination than when they cannot. Although behavioral psychologists have historically eschewed internal or personality variables as explanations for behavior, they too have explored the idea that situations that involve self determination are functionally different than situations that do not involve self determination. For instance, Graff, Libby, and Green (1998) found that participant-selected reinforcers maintained higher rates of free-operant responding, and produced less challenging behaviors, than did experimenter-selected reinforcers in two male participants with severe developmental disabilities. Geckeler, Libby, Graff, and Ahearn (2000) failed to replicate this effect on free-operant responding in three boys with Autism, but did find that when participant-and experimenter-selected reinforcers were available in a concurrent-choice procedure, all three boys showed a response preference for the alternative that allowed them to choose their own reinforcer. These results replicated those of a previous study (i.e., effect of self-determined choice only in the concurrent-schedule situation; Graff & Libby, 1999), which had studied four boys with either developmental disabilities or attention-deficit disorder. More recently, Tiger, Hanley, and Hernandez (2006) studied the effect of reinforcer choice on the behavior of preschool children. Results indicated that five of the six children showed an initial preference for choosing their own reinforcer, although this preference did not persist throughout the entire condition for several of the children. Tiger et al.'s fourth study demonstrated that the children continued to choose the reinforcer-choice option despite the fact that the response requirement for doing so was higher than the no-choice reinforcer option. Overall, these studies support the idea that an outcome that allows the individual to determine his/her own reinforcing consequences can be a more effective or preferred reinforcer than the identical outcome that is not chosen by the individual. Determining whether outcome choice is indeed a more powerful reinforcing consequence than a predetermined outcome has a number of potential implications, especially if that outcome can be demonstrated in an adult sample. For instance, the implication for individuals in
{"title":"Delay Discounting of Self-Determined and Experimenter-Determined Commodities.","authors":"J. Weatherly, Jennifer Gudding, A. Derenne","doi":"10.1037/H0100697","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100697","url":null,"abstract":"Self determination has long been a concept of great interest to psychologists. For instance, self determination was a critical concept in the person-centered therapy and theory of personality that was forwarded by Carl Rogers (Patterson & Joseph, 2007). More recently, self-determination theory has emerged (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2008) as a general theory of human behavior and motivation that has been applied in a wide variety of situations (e.g., education, Kaufman & Dodge, 2009; worker satisfaction & productivity, Kuvaas, 2009). The common theme related to self determination is that it is a good thing; people are happier, more motivated, and more productive when they can exercise self determination than when they cannot. Although behavioral psychologists have historically eschewed internal or personality variables as explanations for behavior, they too have explored the idea that situations that involve self determination are functionally different than situations that do not involve self determination. For instance, Graff, Libby, and Green (1998) found that participant-selected reinforcers maintained higher rates of free-operant responding, and produced less challenging behaviors, than did experimenter-selected reinforcers in two male participants with severe developmental disabilities. Geckeler, Libby, Graff, and Ahearn (2000) failed to replicate this effect on free-operant responding in three boys with Autism, but did find that when participant-and experimenter-selected reinforcers were available in a concurrent-choice procedure, all three boys showed a response preference for the alternative that allowed them to choose their own reinforcer. These results replicated those of a previous study (i.e., effect of self-determined choice only in the concurrent-schedule situation; Graff & Libby, 1999), which had studied four boys with either developmental disabilities or attention-deficit disorder. More recently, Tiger, Hanley, and Hernandez (2006) studied the effect of reinforcer choice on the behavior of preschool children. Results indicated that five of the six children showed an initial preference for choosing their own reinforcer, although this preference did not persist throughout the entire condition for several of the children. Tiger et al.'s fourth study demonstrated that the children continued to choose the reinforcer-choice option despite the fact that the response requirement for doing so was higher than the no-choice reinforcer option. Overall, these studies support the idea that an outcome that allows the individual to determine his/her own reinforcing consequences can be a more effective or preferred reinforcer than the identical outcome that is not chosen by the individual. Determining whether outcome choice is indeed a more powerful reinforcing consequence than a predetermined outcome has a number of potential implications, especially if that outcome can be demonstrated in an adult sample. For instance, the implication for individuals in","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"145-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction In his last book, Ernst Moerk laments: How could a field that is between 100 and 200 years old, whose data are so abundantly and so readily at hand, and which has produced impressive evidence for the wealth of input and its effects, be at present still in a state where almost everything is controversial and where misleading conclusions are so predominant? While year in and year out about two billion young people acquire the various levels of widely differing, and therefore learned, mother tongues, learnability of language has been seriously questioned and rejected in some quarters. (2000, p.179) It can be argued that the major reason for this situation is that the linguistic grammatical classes are still viewed as psychologically real and necessary for language acquisition. Whereas the formal concepts forged by linguists may be appropriate for describing sentence relationships, it is dubious that they are used by native speakers. A sequential-associative theory of morphosyntactic functioning, rooted in pragmatics and semantics, may be proposed as a plausible alternative. Tongue and Language Theoretical writing in linguistics witnesses a confusion between tongue (the language of a nation, country, etc.) and language (a neuropsychological function). The major caveat arises in keeping with the tradition of generative grammar. Over a period of 50 years, the aim of Chomsky and followers has been to account for a human faculty of language, defined as the ability to produce and understand an infinite number of grammatical sentences. Few people have realized the unrealistic character of such a research agenda. Linguistics is a hermeneutic of the tongues. It lacks the methodological tools to go beyond description. Linguists have no experimental control over the situations in which language behaviors occur and have no objective methods for validating empirically alternative theoretical models. There exists a belief in that field (assumed uncritically in psycholinguistics) that what is descriptively relevant must be ipso facto appropriate for explaining how real people proceed when producing sentences. However, to the extent that language functioning is concerned, one is addressing a neuropsychological question calling for a behavioral methodology. Asking people is enough to convince oneself that native speakers (non-language specialists) ignore grammatical notions. They rely on semantic categories. For example, grammatical subjects are agents or topics of state, verbs specify states, actions or events, clauses express "complete" ideas, etc. Compare with the geometrical definitions in structural linguistics (for example, the reverse-tree scheme for sentence representation): the grammatical subject is the noun head of the noun phrase, located immediately below the symbol for the sentence and there is only one noun in this position. Such a state of affairs is not alien to the generative linguist. Chomsky (1965) warns: Thus a generative grammar at
{"title":"Morphosyntactic Learning: A Neurobehavioral Perspective","authors":"J. Rondal","doi":"10.1037/H0100694","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100694","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction In his last book, Ernst Moerk laments: How could a field that is between 100 and 200 years old, whose data are so abundantly and so readily at hand, and which has produced impressive evidence for the wealth of input and its effects, be at present still in a state where almost everything is controversial and where misleading conclusions are so predominant? While year in and year out about two billion young people acquire the various levels of widely differing, and therefore learned, mother tongues, learnability of language has been seriously questioned and rejected in some quarters. (2000, p.179) It can be argued that the major reason for this situation is that the linguistic grammatical classes are still viewed as psychologically real and necessary for language acquisition. Whereas the formal concepts forged by linguists may be appropriate for describing sentence relationships, it is dubious that they are used by native speakers. A sequential-associative theory of morphosyntactic functioning, rooted in pragmatics and semantics, may be proposed as a plausible alternative. Tongue and Language Theoretical writing in linguistics witnesses a confusion between tongue (the language of a nation, country, etc.) and language (a neuropsychological function). The major caveat arises in keeping with the tradition of generative grammar. Over a period of 50 years, the aim of Chomsky and followers has been to account for a human faculty of language, defined as the ability to produce and understand an infinite number of grammatical sentences. Few people have realized the unrealistic character of such a research agenda. Linguistics is a hermeneutic of the tongues. It lacks the methodological tools to go beyond description. Linguists have no experimental control over the situations in which language behaviors occur and have no objective methods for validating empirically alternative theoretical models. There exists a belief in that field (assumed uncritically in psycholinguistics) that what is descriptively relevant must be ipso facto appropriate for explaining how real people proceed when producing sentences. However, to the extent that language functioning is concerned, one is addressing a neuropsychological question calling for a behavioral methodology. Asking people is enough to convince oneself that native speakers (non-language specialists) ignore grammatical notions. They rely on semantic categories. For example, grammatical subjects are agents or topics of state, verbs specify states, actions or events, clauses express \"complete\" ideas, etc. Compare with the geometrical definitions in structural linguistics (for example, the reverse-tree scheme for sentence representation): the grammatical subject is the noun head of the noun phrase, located immediately below the symbol for the sentence and there is only one noun in this position. Such a state of affairs is not alien to the generative linguist. Chomsky (1965) warns: Thus a generative grammar at","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"105-116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Identity matching-to-sample consists of matching a sample stimulus to the corresponding identical comparison stimulus from an array of comparison stimuli (Brown, Brown, & Poulson, 1995). For example, if a learner were presented with an array of stimuli such as a block, car, and spoon (the comparison stimuli), then handed a spoon (the sample stimulus), and told to match, the learner should then place that spoon next to the comparison spoon. After the learner has acquired the ability to match all of the three objects, the experimenter could assess whether he or she had also acquired generalized matching-to-sample by using three different objects, such as a plate, sock, and cup to determine if the learner could match the given sample stimulus with the correct comparison stimulus. If the learner is able to correctly match the novel stimuli, then he or she has acquired a generalized identity matching-to-sample repertoire (Brown, et al., 1995). Identity matching-to-sample has been demonstrated with various animal species such as pigeons (Cummings & Berryman, 1961; Cummings, Berryman, & Cohen, 1965; Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands, & Delius, 1988), California sea lions (Pack, Herman, & Roitblat, 1991), bottle nosed dolphins (Herman & Gordon, 1974; Herman, Honvancik, Gory, Bradshaw, 1989), infant chimpanzees (Oden, Thompson, & Premack, 1988), and macaque monkeys (Washburn, Hopkins, & Rumbaugh, 1989; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Not only did all of the aforementioned experimenters intend to determine whether or not the various species of animals could acquire an identical matching-to-sample repertoire, but also, would a generalized repertoire develop as well. Cumming and Berryman (1961) were unable to get generalized matching with pigeons; however, Cumming, Berryman, and Cohen (1965) got low levels of generalized matching with their pigeons, and Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands, and Delius (1988) got high levels of generalized matching with their pigeons (as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Dolphins demonstrated generalized matching (Herman & Gordon, 1974; Herman et al., 1989), as did infant chimpanzees (Oden et al., 1988; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Following identity matching-to-sample training, California sea lions demonstrated some generalization (Pack et al. 1991) and it is unclear if macaque monkeys acquired a generalized matching repertoire (Washburn et al., 1989; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Children under five years of age can acquire identity matching-to-sample, but no attempt seems to have been made to assess generalization (Dixon & Dixon, 1978; Lutzer, 1987; Daehler, Lonardo, & Bukatko, 1979; as cited by Brown, et al., 1995). If a skill is going to be targeted for acquisition, it should be taught not only to mastery, but the generalization of that skill needs to be targeted as well. However, Brown, Brown, and Poulson (1995) demonstrated that three typically developing children were able to acquire generalized identity matching-to-sample. Whil
样本身份匹配包括将样本刺激与一系列比较刺激中相应的相同比较刺激进行匹配(Brown, Brown， & Poulson, 1995)。例如，如果向学习者展示一系列刺激物，如积木、汽车和勺子(比较刺激物)，然后递给一个勺子(样本刺激物)，并告诉学习者要匹配，然后学习者应该把这个勺子放在比较勺子旁边。在学习者获得了匹配所有三个物体的能力之后，实验者可以通过使用三个不同的物体(如盘子、袜子和杯子)来评估他或她是否也获得了对样本的广义匹配，以确定学习者是否能够将给定的样本刺激与正确的比较刺激匹配起来。如果学习者能够正确匹配新刺激，那么他或她已经获得了一个广义的身份匹配样本库(Brown, et al, 1995)。身份与样本的匹配已在鸽子等各种动物物种中得到证明(Cummings & Berryman, 1961;卡明斯，贝里曼，科恩，1965;Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands， & Delius, 1988)，加利福尼亚海狮(Pack, Herman， & Roitblat, 1991)，瓶鼻海豚(Herman & Gordon, 1974;Herman, Honvancik, Gory, Bradshaw, 1989)，幼年黑猩猩(Oden, Thompson， & Premack, 1988)，猕猴(Washburn, Hopkins， & Rumbaugh, 1989;引用自Brown et al.， 1995)。上述所有的实验人员不仅想要确定不同种类的动物是否能获得相同的匹配样本的技能，而且也想要确定是否能发展出一种通用的技能。Cumming和Berryman(1961)无法得到与鸽子的广义匹配;然而，Cumming, Berryman, and Cohen(1965)与鸽子的广义匹配程度较低，而Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands, and Delius(1988)与鸽子的广义匹配程度较高(Brown et al.， 1995)。海豚证明了广义匹配(Herman & Gordon, 1974;Herman et al.， 1989)，幼年黑猩猩也是如此(Oden et al.， 1988;引用自Brown et al.， 1995)。经过身份匹配到样本的训练，加利福尼亚海狮表现出一定的泛化(Pack等，1991)，尚不清楚猕猴是否获得了泛化的匹配技能(Washburn等，1989;引用自Brown et al.， 1995)。五岁以下的儿童可以获得身份匹配样本，但似乎没有尝试评估概括(Dixon & Dixon, 1978;鲁茨,1987;Daehler, ronardo， & Bukatko, 1979;引用自Brown等人，1995年)。如果一项技能的目标是获取，那么它不仅应该被教授为精通，还应该被教授为该技能的泛化。然而，Brown, Brown, and Poulson(1995)证明了三个典型发展的儿童能够获得广义的样本认同匹配。虽然许多手册建议对有发育障碍的幼儿进行抽样匹配培训(Lovaas, 1981;Taylor， & McDonough, 1996)，我们还没有发现任何文献表明传统的样本匹配可以在有发育障碍的幼儿身上实现。尽管Saunders和Sherman(1986)教授三个发育迟缓的青少年样本匹配;这三个孩子都表现出了广义匹配能力(Brown et al.， 1995)，但仍需要证明不仅是样本匹配，还有发育迟缓幼儿的广义匹配。虽然广义匹配是一个有趣的理论问题，但它也可能具有相当大的实际重要性，因为孩子们很少有机会将他们的匹配技能与训练中使用的特定刺激相结合。如果孩子没有获得广义的匹配技能，那么获得身份匹配技能对孩子来说就没有什么价值，这样他或她就可以在各种教育和实践环境中使用这种技能，在这些环境中，匹配任务涉及新颖的、未经训练的刺激。．．．
{"title":"The Acquisition of Generalized Matching in Children with Developmental Delays.","authors":"K. L. Gaisford, R. Malott","doi":"10.1037/H0100692","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100692","url":null,"abstract":"Identity matching-to-sample consists of matching a sample stimulus to the corresponding identical comparison stimulus from an array of comparison stimuli (Brown, Brown, & Poulson, 1995). For example, if a learner were presented with an array of stimuli such as a block, car, and spoon (the comparison stimuli), then handed a spoon (the sample stimulus), and told to match, the learner should then place that spoon next to the comparison spoon. After the learner has acquired the ability to match all of the three objects, the experimenter could assess whether he or she had also acquired generalized matching-to-sample by using three different objects, such as a plate, sock, and cup to determine if the learner could match the given sample stimulus with the correct comparison stimulus. If the learner is able to correctly match the novel stimuli, then he or she has acquired a generalized identity matching-to-sample repertoire (Brown, et al., 1995). Identity matching-to-sample has been demonstrated with various animal species such as pigeons (Cummings & Berryman, 1961; Cummings, Berryman, & Cohen, 1965; Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands, & Delius, 1988), California sea lions (Pack, Herman, & Roitblat, 1991), bottle nosed dolphins (Herman & Gordon, 1974; Herman, Honvancik, Gory, Bradshaw, 1989), infant chimpanzees (Oden, Thompson, & Premack, 1988), and macaque monkeys (Washburn, Hopkins, & Rumbaugh, 1989; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Not only did all of the aforementioned experimenters intend to determine whether or not the various species of animals could acquire an identical matching-to-sample repertoire, but also, would a generalized repertoire develop as well. Cumming and Berryman (1961) were unable to get generalized matching with pigeons; however, Cumming, Berryman, and Cohen (1965) got low levels of generalized matching with their pigeons, and Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands, and Delius (1988) got high levels of generalized matching with their pigeons (as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Dolphins demonstrated generalized matching (Herman & Gordon, 1974; Herman et al., 1989), as did infant chimpanzees (Oden et al., 1988; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Following identity matching-to-sample training, California sea lions demonstrated some generalization (Pack et al. 1991) and it is unclear if macaque monkeys acquired a generalized matching repertoire (Washburn et al., 1989; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Children under five years of age can acquire identity matching-to-sample, but no attempt seems to have been made to assess generalization (Dixon & Dixon, 1978; Lutzer, 1987; Daehler, Lonardo, & Bukatko, 1979; as cited by Brown, et al., 1995). If a skill is going to be targeted for acquisition, it should be taught not only to mastery, but the generalization of that skill needs to be targeted as well. However, Brown, Brown, and Poulson (1995) demonstrated that three typically developing children were able to acquire generalized identity matching-to-sample. Whil","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"85-94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58473850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Timeout, when used effectively, is a powerful behavior management tool (Turner & Watson, 1999). Timeout is defined as "the withdrawal of the opportunity to earn positive reinforcement or the loss of positive reinforcers for a specified time, contingent upon the occurrence of a behavior; the effect to reduce the future probability of that behavior" (Cooper, Heron, Heward, 2007, p. 357). Thus, timeout has two necessary conditions. First, the current environment must have reinforcing qualities. Second, a removal of those qualities must be less reinforcing than a removal from that environment. In other words, there must be a discrepancy between time-in (i.e. the environment with reinforcement) and timeout (i.e., the environment without reinforcement; Friman & Finney, 2003; Harris, 1985; Marlow, Tingstrom, Olmi, & Edwards, 1997). In early studies, researchers demonstrated timeout by placing an animal on extinction following some behavior, which subsequently decreased that behavior's probability (Anderson & King, 1974). However, as timeout was applied in more and more settings, variability rather than conformity appeared (Friman & Finney, 2003). Even with response variability, timeout is now one of the most common disciplinary tactics used with children in the United States (Friman & Finney, 2003). There are three types of timeout: isolation or total removal from a reinforcing environment, exclusion from reinforcement within an environment, and non-exclusionary or reinforcement is stopped (Harris, 1985). Additionally, three types of nonexclusionary timeout include a removal of the reinforcing stimulus (i.e., withholding food or the cessation of music), ignoring the subject (i.e., turning away from the subject), and contingent observation (i.e., the subject must sit out and watch the appropriate behaviors of peers; Harris, 1985). With different variations available, considerations must be made when choosing a timeout procedure. For a timeout to be effective it must be applied immediately following each occurrence of the target behavior, which is not always possible with isolation and exclusion (Hugenin & Mulick, 1981). Additionally, moving an individual during isolation, exclusion, or contingent observation timeout procedures usually involves physical guidance, which has been shown to reinforce misbehavior (Kern, Delany, Hilt, Bailin, & Elliot, 2002). Recently, the Council of Children with Behavioral Disorders (2009) has released a position statement concerning the use of seclusion and isolation. The considerations include secluding the individual too long (i.e., the loss of a considerable amount of educational time), the potential for abuse, and additional paradoxical effects (i.e., timeout as a positive or negative reinforcer for inappropriate behavior). In summary, timeouts have heightened detrimental effects when used ineffectively by inexperienced people (Harris, 1985). On the other hand, non-exclusionary timeout procedures do not have the same neg
{"title":"A Review of Timeout Ribbons.","authors":"Douglas E. Kostewicz","doi":"10.1037/H0100693","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100693","url":null,"abstract":"Timeout, when used effectively, is a powerful behavior management tool (Turner & Watson, 1999). Timeout is defined as \"the withdrawal of the opportunity to earn positive reinforcement or the loss of positive reinforcers for a specified time, contingent upon the occurrence of a behavior; the effect to reduce the future probability of that behavior\" (Cooper, Heron, Heward, 2007, p. 357). Thus, timeout has two necessary conditions. First, the current environment must have reinforcing qualities. Second, a removal of those qualities must be less reinforcing than a removal from that environment. In other words, there must be a discrepancy between time-in (i.e. the environment with reinforcement) and timeout (i.e., the environment without reinforcement; Friman & Finney, 2003; Harris, 1985; Marlow, Tingstrom, Olmi, & Edwards, 1997). In early studies, researchers demonstrated timeout by placing an animal on extinction following some behavior, which subsequently decreased that behavior's probability (Anderson & King, 1974). However, as timeout was applied in more and more settings, variability rather than conformity appeared (Friman & Finney, 2003). Even with response variability, timeout is now one of the most common disciplinary tactics used with children in the United States (Friman & Finney, 2003). There are three types of timeout: isolation or total removal from a reinforcing environment, exclusion from reinforcement within an environment, and non-exclusionary or reinforcement is stopped (Harris, 1985). Additionally, three types of nonexclusionary timeout include a removal of the reinforcing stimulus (i.e., withholding food or the cessation of music), ignoring the subject (i.e., turning away from the subject), and contingent observation (i.e., the subject must sit out and watch the appropriate behaviors of peers; Harris, 1985). With different variations available, considerations must be made when choosing a timeout procedure. For a timeout to be effective it must be applied immediately following each occurrence of the target behavior, which is not always possible with isolation and exclusion (Hugenin & Mulick, 1981). Additionally, moving an individual during isolation, exclusion, or contingent observation timeout procedures usually involves physical guidance, which has been shown to reinforce misbehavior (Kern, Delany, Hilt, Bailin, & Elliot, 2002). Recently, the Council of Children with Behavioral Disorders (2009) has released a position statement concerning the use of seclusion and isolation. The considerations include secluding the individual too long (i.e., the loss of a considerable amount of educational time), the potential for abuse, and additional paradoxical effects (i.e., timeout as a positive or negative reinforcer for inappropriate behavior). In summary, timeouts have heightened detrimental effects when used ineffectively by inexperienced people (Harris, 1985). On the other hand, non-exclusionary timeout procedures do not have the same neg","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"95-104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Terry S. Falcomata, J. Ringdahl, T. Christensen, Eric W. Boelter
Functional Communication Training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is currently one of the most commonly utilized treatments for challenging behavior in the behavioral literature (Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008). FCT is typically implemented following the identification of the function(s) of challenging behavior via functional assessment. Following the functional assessment, the identified functional reinforcement is made contingent on an appropriate communicative response (mand) and withheld following occurrences of challenging behavior. FCT and various mechanisms that influence the treatment's effectiveness have been evaluated within many second-generation studies following the seminal study published by Carr & Durand (1985). These include reinforcement-based components such as the role of extinction (Fisher et al., 1993; Wacker, et al., 1990) and punishment (Wacker et al., 1990); and topography-based variables such as effort associated with various mands (Buckley & Newchok, 2005; Richman, Wacker, & Winborn, 2001), the relative novelty of mands in an individual's behavioral repertoire (Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, & Geier, 2002), preference for various available mands (Winborn-Kemmerer, Ringdahl, Wacker, & Kitsukawa, 2009), and the relative proficiency with which individuals use various mand topographies (Ringdahl et al., 2009). In addition, several second-generation studies have evaluated the role of various antecedent variables on the effectiveness of FCT (e.g., Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998; Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Kuhn, 2004; Peyton, Lindauer, & Richman, 2005). For example, several studies have evaluated various prompt parameters including prompt type (Lerman et al.; Peyton et al.) and schedule of prompting (Johnson, McComas, Thompson, & Symons, 2004). Specifically, Johnson et al. provided preliminary evidence of the effect of prompt schedule on mands during FCT. In that study, the experimenters implemented FCT in which both aggression and mands were reinforced on concurrent FR1 schedules of reinforcement. Initially, mand prompts were delivered on a VT 75 s schedule and mands were exhibited at low rates (i.e., 0.3 responses per minute; RPM) while aggression was exhibited at comparatively higher rates (i.e., 1.1 RPM). When prompts for manding were delivered on a FT 10s schedule, the mean rate of mands increased to 1.2 RPM while the mean rate of aggression decreased to 0.1 RPM. Although Johnson et al.'s results suggested the important role that prompt schedules likely play in mand allocation during FCT, it was not a primary focus of the study and the effects of prompt schedules were not experimentally established. Other research has focused on the effect of concurrent schedules on responding (e.g., Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000), expanding the understanding of the interaction between reinforcement schedules and appropriate communicative behavior. Concurrent schedules have also been used to demonstrate that response param
{"title":"An Evaluation of Prompt Schedules and Mand Preference during Functional Communication Training","authors":"Terry S. Falcomata, J. Ringdahl, T. Christensen, Eric W. Boelter","doi":"10.1037/H0100690","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100690","url":null,"abstract":"Functional Communication Training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is currently one of the most commonly utilized treatments for challenging behavior in the behavioral literature (Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008). FCT is typically implemented following the identification of the function(s) of challenging behavior via functional assessment. Following the functional assessment, the identified functional reinforcement is made contingent on an appropriate communicative response (mand) and withheld following occurrences of challenging behavior. FCT and various mechanisms that influence the treatment's effectiveness have been evaluated within many second-generation studies following the seminal study published by Carr & Durand (1985). These include reinforcement-based components such as the role of extinction (Fisher et al., 1993; Wacker, et al., 1990) and punishment (Wacker et al., 1990); and topography-based variables such as effort associated with various mands (Buckley & Newchok, 2005; Richman, Wacker, & Winborn, 2001), the relative novelty of mands in an individual's behavioral repertoire (Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, & Geier, 2002), preference for various available mands (Winborn-Kemmerer, Ringdahl, Wacker, & Kitsukawa, 2009), and the relative proficiency with which individuals use various mand topographies (Ringdahl et al., 2009). In addition, several second-generation studies have evaluated the role of various antecedent variables on the effectiveness of FCT (e.g., Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998; Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Kuhn, 2004; Peyton, Lindauer, & Richman, 2005). For example, several studies have evaluated various prompt parameters including prompt type (Lerman et al.; Peyton et al.) and schedule of prompting (Johnson, McComas, Thompson, & Symons, 2004). Specifically, Johnson et al. provided preliminary evidence of the effect of prompt schedule on mands during FCT. In that study, the experimenters implemented FCT in which both aggression and mands were reinforced on concurrent FR1 schedules of reinforcement. Initially, mand prompts were delivered on a VT 75 s schedule and mands were exhibited at low rates (i.e., 0.3 responses per minute; RPM) while aggression was exhibited at comparatively higher rates (i.e., 1.1 RPM). When prompts for manding were delivered on a FT 10s schedule, the mean rate of mands increased to 1.2 RPM while the mean rate of aggression decreased to 0.1 RPM. Although Johnson et al.'s results suggested the important role that prompt schedules likely play in mand allocation during FCT, it was not a primary focus of the study and the effects of prompt schedules were not experimentally established. Other research has focused on the effect of concurrent schedules on responding (e.g., Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000), expanding the understanding of the interaction between reinforcement schedules and appropriate communicative behavior. Concurrent schedules have also been used to demonstrate that response param","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"77-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58473620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：